 So the last SIP award, after being able to queue K-Round multiple competitions from K-Round in the transfer year, all of them had to surface by Felice Ben-Armuda in the transfer year. So here's an example. Let's start with an example of Secure Consumption, the first part of the cycle. So let's start with an example of the function. You have a symbol, you are going to sell some items, you have many potential buyers and you are going to buy the item and you put this SIP. You just buy your item with SIP dollars. And at the end of the ocean, what you would like is that the seller learns the maximum bid and the name of the company buyer while the buyer only learns the number one or not yet. So we see that you are doing a positive party, but you are a photographer, and you are doing a positive party and you want to use Secure Consumption. And the important question is, how do you want this communication to be needed to do such a Secure Consumption? Before we start, let me introduce the security model that we consider as the SIP. So suppose that the investor has brought any party at the beginning of the month and he was given three security models. The first one is the SIP model, whereas the quality party is mostly the SIP, mostly the SIP model. At the other end of the ocean, you have the national city where quality party can be an arbitrary party. And in the middle, you have the lesser known city, a semi-magical city, where quality party must be an arbitrary party, but the investor can choose the input and randomness of this party at the end. And this model is very, very easy because you can transform in any situation, any situation, in a relationship, just by any means, and the transmission is not presently. So that's right for our initial question on the security. And therefore, for the MPC, let's talk about the second part of the title of Secure Consumption. So the Secure Consumption is a specific MPC of the party between a receiver and sender. The receiver has a IP, sender has a message X on its line, and at the end of the vote of party, the receiver should learn the message XB, and sender should not know it. So obviously, obviously, quality is a specific MPC, so carry on and see if I carry on. But what about the converse? Does carry on quality if I carry on XB? So, as Ache told us in the end, he's going to show that you are going to have two parties, you can construct two parties, one of them is right. The other one is impossible from any other party. But as soon as the other party is more than two, the party is much more difficult. So in the 80s, there was a new show how to construct a photocard with a lot of funds, which didn't happen at the end of the circuit, since there have been many improvements. And very recently, there have been two small MPC photocards, and there are various functions. So as you said that, first of all, one MPC photocard is impossible, so two MPC photocards are looking for the number of funds, so that's right. But the issue is that all these photocards usually use some set up, like CRS, but if not something else, how do you various assumptions that are you working this way? So even more recently, some of you have an address that manages to construct two MPC without set up, and understand that assumption over a variety of angles. So that's a very, very good answer. But still, there's no question of whether we can construct a true MPC photocard without a minimal assumption, true or not. And our overview on the particular MPC photocard shows that we can do this. We can construct a current MPC photocard, we can do this equivalent to current MPC, and that's true in both the same thing as MPC photocards. So if you start from a streamer's point of view, you get a streamer at MPC. If you start from a streamer's point of view, you get a streamer at MPC. If you start from a streamer's point of view, you get a streamer at MPC. Because that's a problematic case, we can only put that one case at this point. We have to do it at the right place. So through all the MPCs, through all the MPCs that we constructed from stronger teams, both streamers need to go this way. And if you start from that, you get two more MPC measures, two more MPCs, starting from the streamer's point of view, using this genetic condition that we talked to you about before, or from our show, etc. So that's quickly to get the previous one in the measure setting and the pendulum also, because it's a traditional trend. So in that setting, there is a ground control of one of four rounds. And there will be two reasons to work on ground control to achieve this lower ground and the standard of ascension, but not minimal ascension. So on the other hand, we can achieve the lower ground with only 500 MPC but for minimal ascension, 500 MPC. And this then opens the question of can we also form an MPC from a 4-round MPC in the measure setting so very much for our results. So it is so very important to figure out the setting of this case on the strong case, because this will give you the main idea of autopilot. And the example of this very nice work of Gare-Jasquiel, Jean-Marie Gauvard, from 2011, was actually based on ground collapsing. So, the same way that this is performed, the example from the MPC of autopilot, Eric had been very loved and is a Gare-Jasquiel autopilot. And then it collapsed all the walls into just two walls and that the highway idea is a project. Essentially, it is a new ground of the world. Each part of the PR will broadcast some obfuscative version of itself running the L1 MPC project. This is obfuscative version of itself between altitude and ground orbit. As you can see, all the obfuscative versions of all the other projects can be able to locally run the L1 MPC project. So each time you have to interact with your player, you have to evaluate the obfuscative version of the other players. So, no need for an introduction of this. We just run it mathematically to the number of points. So that will give you an inspiration of this parallel, the first one from Gareth from IO analysis that is going to meet the description of this issue and finally by examples by Gareth's universal and it is going to be solved. I will have to start by presenting the initial construction from IO analysis because it's simple to understand. Before, we need some modernness of our eyes and then I will show you the protocol in each round each player will have a monocast analysis of all the other players and completely in all one you have to complete the analysis of M1 as a data of the portion of the MPC of the other players and compute the second of the MPC to compute the wrongness of the portion of the player from that table here and at the end from all these entries you receive the item and from its inputs and science from the MPC our data will use output so how do we do the wrong maps? So first we must have the item that is at the bottom of the table of the protocol that's in the bottom of the table but then cannot because this is a given of the portion of the other player so this is not possible so we will obtain the following protocol the wrong mistake and input the research of the portion of the other player and the wrong the next wrong research of the other player which does the data because the wrong is involved of this and the wrong same for the purple which is in the purple function and the other because that it is easy to see that the wrong MPC protocol will be correct because there is a key tool will collect all the personal data of everybody and all of these key problems then we take this portion of this island and we evaluate the second wrong MPC program of all the other player on this personal message and get the second wrong research of all the players and then we start to evaluate the Oxyclic program of all the players and get all the research of the other model MPC protocol so this is right that it is convenient because the tool for example which run locally exactly the same as one Oxyclic program which also run the Oxyclic program on another island so if you want to work and learn the output of the first wrong all is possible it is difficult so to solve that we close to first points to issue that will be a first wrong where the API will then broadcast the commitment of its input and all of this and then the second wrong is 0.5 I mean the second wrong is 0.2 what you are saying is 0.5 the Oxyclic program will also ask as it moves to prove that the message received is correct and then the box is broken is correct and we see that the Oxyclic program will also produce a proof that the message is correct so that everything can be run close to it so if you want to know the proof that I am you prove that the commitment such as MIM the message of Tial from L has not been concluded except correct this is the first wrong all you close to your music but you must you must close to your music you must close to your music you must close to your music you must close to your music you must close to your music you should replace the message this is wrong then we show that it can simply double what we practice so we have this functional commitment and this step is to review the obfuscation and combining what we are trying to do with any R1 and C what we can get from R1 and C but we first describe the governance of the message to review the obfuscation what is the functional commitment which is the description of the message this was the protocol but you must consider this protocol is that since MIM is the wrong part it seems to round out that the transcript of the inner protocol is completely fixed in other words in other words the R1 and R1 are unique but we have to consider that obfuscation is not because the input is unique but if the obfuscation is exactly to ensure that we have a valid obfuscation we have to make a difference because that's the way the obfuscation is unique but we have to make a difference because that's the way obfuscation is not because it is too small and that's what we all don't even see because can't be sure somehow the obfuscation can't be made once but it's a bit but I want to do that to understand how to create the following program which happens to be a your primary or primary one so can you have a transmission proof that this is your input then it waits from the decision of the order of R1 and Pj and continues to and so on waits from the Pj decision on the previous one and goes to the next one until we get the problem and our goal is to obfuscate this but the input of obfuscation has always exactly so let's try to like cover all the steps like each step you can see let's use simple java circuit where is the java circuit java circuit you need to know the label which is the input you want to run the java circuit and and what happens the states the states input is easy to give you can just add all these and you can use the java circuit so the label calls the state and the rest of the states so that's just one java circuit but what about the label is a message which comes from the java you said that must be good just use them when you use the java circuit but that's absolutely because you don't know them for example you don't know what's wrong and what's wrong you don't know if you said that so we somehow need a translation mechanism which allows the message that the other party is trying to prove that these messages are valid to recover the question labels of the next of the other party and how to implement this mystery mechanism so we can use this mechanism there's a people that to make it just one bit and then you go up you don't get A and JL so then create the label in the way that people can differentiate if you know the truth that the next message calls me to the commitments of the party here is NJL quality and you know with the differences it's exactly what people with discrimination have shows but generally with discrimination it's very inefficient and you see this as a lot of assumptions and we want to also get people to know the truth but first I would like to show you that we have generalized ideas we have seen before in generic interactive or java interactive and this all is generalized around programming is great in epidemiology and also the lepto-deco team and CGH they are the competitors of the film back of the party MPC so we need to find a way to get rid of these and the solution we propose is to use a special commitment to replace the commitments to the music of the business of the film what is the classical commitment there are also parties to commit to some value and later to propose to show that I give it to you to see value in me and around the place I propose to show that you cannot propose a commitment to a certain person when you do it the right party says that a commitment is and the right function of commitment is set here so as a commitment you first do it to some value but then you cannot propose a commitment you can propose a passion or function but this is a different for me personally I can provide you what you call the decommissioned commitment which forms as G of G of Y a commitment so that you cannot offer a commitment to anything that Y is a commitment depending on the situation on the other hand you want some equivalent of value for what you do for what you say that the commitment of the decommissioned commitment is a commitment not itself but here we also need a specific commitment to make this work and we show that we can protect all of this just on its own so I don't have time to explain you all to do that but I would just like to say that I am surprised because only the small set already cannot correspond to some of the commitments to decommissioned and this is true on the big small set you can see the portion on the very small to the whole of the center of the decommissioned of the receiver and the same amount as the decommissioned side effects of the USAID X-ray 1S1 such that the receiver will be able to okay, so we need more work to get functional commitment but I don't have time to make that up so we include in the description that the decommissioned is equivalent to the other decommissioned and of course to introduce the two new tools to generalize various forms such as the infotainment based on the control which might help with the application and functional commitment so we have to include in the description of the USAID X-ray 1S1 thank you for your questions The question So do you use the deep of only for functional commitment or do you use it somewhere else? No, why not so if you have like if you have like one out functional commitment would you be able to use The whole thing went out, because basically you can put everything in the cloud of samples. You can put it in the first file message, why can't you put it in the first file message? No, so anyway, one of the reasons is not possible, because a party candidate and a second candidate tried to evaluate the functionality of the MBCO of any event, and in any exposure to the concept. So one of the reasons is not possible, so you need to have this unit, you need to commit to a put and set for a loss of publication. There is no way to talk about that. I mean, it's okay, you can actually, but anyway, you can do it anyways, if you want to just try to do it, you can do it. But one of the reasons is not the MBCO of any event. Yeah, right, and I think you can work together with that. Okay, so let's thank all the speakers.